The Atlantic - How the Video-Game Industry Already Lost Out in the Gun-Control Debate.As it happens, that's just what happened to games (and popular media more generally) in the NRA's good guy with a gun response to the Newtown shooting. Guns aren't a factor in gun violence for the NRAŚrather, games, media, and law enforcement failures must take the blame. Once the terms of the debate are set like this (and set they very much were thanks to the over-the-top bravado in this press conference) then it's very hard to extract oneself from the debate without shifting the frame, without changing the terms of the debate.

I certainly believe that the White House would like nothing more than to see an end to mass gun murders in America's elementary schools. But the fact remains that gun violence takes place every day, all across this country, at a rate of dozens of deaths a day, and as the leading cause of death among African-American youth. But when the vice president establishes a task force on gun control and violence that includes the media industries that the NRA has once again chosen as their patsies after a particularly heinous and public example of gun violence, all it can do is shift attention away from guns.

IGN - Let's Talk About Violent Video Games.Distinctions between games for adults and those for kids are fairly clear these days, thanks to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). Formed in 1994, the ESRB rates all video games as a guide for parents similar to the way movies are rated by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Games are rated ranging from E for Everyone and T for Teen to M for Mature, 17+.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that games are only for children. This needs to change for the 'violence in games' dialogue to advance.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:19:are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.

There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.

But that isn't a solution. You still need to say who is going to come up with. Who will enforce it? What measures will there be? How will we know when pills are still right? How do you know pills aren't?

What you're doing is saying "the problem is some people are bad. If people decided not to be bad, we'd be ok." Great. Still not a solution.

I didn't say it was an outright solution but you have to start somewhere. And things like that would be a far better start than banning clip sizes or semi automatics because those two things won't affect anything at all.

What's your solution? What have the anti gun people offered up that will actually affect anything?

And really stop twisting my words to suit your stance that guns are the issue. As cliche as it is at this point inanimate objects don't decide for people. People still pull the trigger. As much as you hate it when I bring up personal responsibility it doesn't make it any less true.

You do this all the time Beamer, someone offers suggestions be it on spending cuts, or whatever else and your default answer is "That's not a solution" without ever offering up any realistic solutions of your own

YOUHAVEN'T GIVENUSANYWHERETO START

You've identified an issue: you feel we treat too much with pills. But you have YET to identify a solution for this. You dance around, dance around, dance around. Your solution is just "we shouldn't do that."

Fuck, man. You never address:1) Why we do that2) Who is responsible for doing that3) How we can change the thinking of those responsible4) How we can enforce this5) How we can monitor the change

Again, should the FDA pass new regulations? Should the legislators pass new laws? Should medical schools change their curriculum (and who will make them?) What is to prevent current doctors from just doing what they do? And who are you, RollinThundr, to question the thinking of millions of doctors? On that note, shouldn't we commission some studies on pills vs other treatment? Who will pay for these studies? Who will do them? Who will review the results? Who will pay for alternative care, which will certainly be more costly and time consuming than pills? Who will do the training for this? Will we have facilities for these people? Will the government be involved?

However, saying that we should ban giant clips, so that anyone on a rampage has to reload, giving people time to flee, is something that people can actually do. Saying we should ban gun convention sales and private gun collector sales, where no background check is needed, is something that can easily be done. Saying we should have more of a detailed background check, one that perhaps looks for warning signs of certain medication, is something that can be done.

See how mentioning laws and regulations that are specific and doable, and showing the intended outcome, is different than saying "well, doctors should prescribe less pills."

Also, nice way to turn around what I keep saying to you. I've offered solutions here. The problem is that you don't. You put out pie in the sky stuff that isn't an actual plan. Things no one can actually do. Things not really thought through.

How do you enforce background checks on private gun sales? Last I checked it only takes 1 bullet to kill someone, the majority of gun crimes in the US are committed with handguns, how will banning certain clip sizes affect over all gun crime?

Sure the shit you're proposing is doable that's great, and aside from being a feel good and useless way to go about it it won't affect anything at all.

But hey keep on subscribing happy pills, rather than look at ways to help people with mental problems in other ways. It's working out so well for us!

I said ban private sales. Ban. Jesus, read.

Also, we're not talking about solving all gun crime. We're talking about solving the random shootings. Guess what the Batman shooter had - large clips!

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:19:are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.

There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.

But that isn't a solution. You still need to say who is going to come up with. Who will enforce it? What measures will there be? How will we know when pills are still right? How do you know pills aren't?

What you're doing is saying "the problem is some people are bad. If people decided not to be bad, we'd be ok." Great. Still not a solution.

I didn't say it was an outright solution but you have to start somewhere. And things like that would be a far better start than banning clip sizes or semi automatics because those two things won't affect anything at all.

What's your solution? What have the anti gun people offered up that will actually affect anything?

And really stop twisting my words to suit your stance that guns are the issue. As cliche as it is at this point inanimate objects don't decide for people. People still pull the trigger. As much as you hate it when I bring up personal responsibility it doesn't make it any less true.

You do this all the time Beamer, someone offers suggestions be it on spending cuts, or whatever else and your default answer is "That's not a solution" without ever offering up any realistic solutions of your own

YOUHAVEN'T GIVENUSANYWHERETO START

You've identified an issue: you feel we treat too much with pills. But you have YET to identify a solution for this. You dance around, dance around, dance around. Your solution is just "we shouldn't do that."

Fuck, man. You never address:1) Why we do that2) Who is responsible for doing that3) How we can change the thinking of those responsible4) How we can enforce this5) How we can monitor the change

Again, should the FDA pass new regulations? Should the legislators pass new laws? Should medical schools change their curriculum (and who will make them?) What is to prevent current doctors from just doing what they do? And who are you, RollinThundr, to question the thinking of millions of doctors? On that note, shouldn't we commission some studies on pills vs other treatment? Who will pay for these studies? Who will do them? Who will review the results? Who will pay for alternative care, which will certainly be more costly and time consuming than pills? Who will do the training for this? Will we have facilities for these people? Will the government be involved?

However, saying that we should ban giant clips, so that anyone on a rampage has to reload, giving people time to flee, is something that people can actually do. Saying we should ban gun convention sales and private gun collector sales, where no background check is needed, is something that can easily be done. Saying we should have more of a detailed background check, one that perhaps looks for warning signs of certain medication, is something that can be done.

See how mentioning laws and regulations that are specific and doable, and showing the intended outcome, is different than saying "well, doctors should prescribe less pills."

Also, nice way to turn around what I keep saying to you. I've offered solutions here. The problem is that you don't. You put out pie in the sky stuff that isn't an actual plan. Things no one can actually do. Things not really thought through.

How do you enforce background checks on private gun sales? Last I checked it only takes 1 bullet to kill someone, the majority of gun crimes in the US are committed with handguns, how will banning certain clip sizes affect over all gun crime?

Sure the shit you're proposing is doable that's great, and aside from being a feel good and useless way to go about it it won't affect anything at all.

But hey keep on subscribing happy pills, rather than look at ways to help people with mental problems in other ways. It's working out so well for us!

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:19:are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.

There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.

But that isn't a solution. You still need to say who is going to come up with. Who will enforce it? What measures will there be? How will we know when pills are still right? How do you know pills aren't?

What you're doing is saying "the problem is some people are bad. If people decided not to be bad, we'd be ok." Great. Still not a solution.

I didn't say it was an outright solution but you have to start somewhere. And things like that would be a far better start than banning clip sizes or semi automatics because those two things won't affect anything at all.

What's your solution? What have the anti gun people offered up that will actually affect anything?

And really stop twisting my words to suit your stance that guns are the issue. As cliche as it is at this point inanimate objects don't decide for people. People still pull the trigger. As much as you hate it when I bring up personal responsibility it doesn't make it any less true.

You do this all the time Beamer, someone offers suggestions be it on spending cuts, or whatever else and your default answer is "That's not a solution" without ever offering up any realistic solutions of your own

YOUHAVEN'T GIVENUSANYWHERETO START

You've identified an issue: you feel we treat too much with pills. But you have YET to identify a solution for this. You dance around, dance around, dance around. Your solution is just "we shouldn't do that."

Fuck, man. You never address:1) Why we do that2) Who is responsible for doing that3) How we can change the thinking of those responsible4) How we can enforce this5) How we can monitor the change

Again, should the FDA pass new regulations? Should the legislators pass new laws? Should medical schools change their curriculum (and who will make them?) What is to prevent current doctors from just doing what they do? And who are you, RollinThundr, to question the thinking of millions of doctors? On that note, shouldn't we commission some studies on pills vs other treatment? Who will pay for these studies? Who will do them? Who will review the results? Who will pay for alternative care, which will certainly be more costly and time consuming than pills? Who will do the training for this? Will we have facilities for these people? Will the government be involved?

However, saying that we should ban giant clips, so that anyone on a rampage has to reload, giving people time to flee, is something that people can actually do. Saying we should ban gun convention sales and private gun collector sales, where no background check is needed, is something that can easily be done. Saying we should have more of a detailed background check, one that perhaps looks for warning signs of certain medication, is something that can be done.

See how mentioning laws and regulations that are specific and doable, and showing the intended outcome, is different than saying "well, doctors should prescribe less pills."

Also, nice way to turn around what I keep saying to you. I've offered solutions here. The problem is that you don't. You put out pie in the sky stuff that isn't an actual plan. Things no one can actually do. Things not really thought through.

I forgot, leftists don't deal in facts. When confronted with hard statistics, they resort to name-calling and demonizing. They can't stand any logic thrown at them that throws their "perfect world" view out of whack. If the Fed govt continues down its radical leftist path, we will soon see more states do what Wyoming is getting ready to do, creating their own state law to nullify federal law and arresting any feds who come into the state to try to enforce any federal laws they have nullified. Next will be secession. Hopefully Texas will be one of the first.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:19:are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.

There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.

But that isn't a solution. You still need to say who is going to come up with. Who will enforce it? What measures will there be? How will we know when pills are still right? How do you know pills aren't?

What you're doing is saying "the problem is some people are bad. If people decided not to be bad, we'd be ok." Great. Still not a solution.

I didn't say it was an outright solution but you have to start somewhere. And things like that would be a far better start than banning clip sizes or semi automatics because those two things won't affect anything at all.

What's your solution? What have the anti gun people offered up that will actually affect anything?

And really stop twisting my words to suit your stance that guns are the issue. As cliche as it is at this point inanimate objects don't decide for people. People still pull the trigger. As much as you hate it when I bring up personal responsibility it doesn't make it any less true.

You do this all the time Beamer, someone offers suggestions be it on spending cuts, or whatever else and your default answer is "That's not a solution" without ever offering up any realistic solutions of your own

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:19:are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.

There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.

But that isn't a solution. You still need to say who is going to come up with. Who will enforce it? What measures will there be? How will we know when pills are still right? How do you know pills aren't?

What you're doing is saying "the problem is some people are bad. If people decided not to be bad, we'd be ok." Great. Still not a solution.

I don't really care for Jon Stewart but he makes a lot of sense here about the problems with the gun debate. It's a multifaceted problem and you don't give up before you begin, you start somewhere a little bit at a time so that people don't buy guns to do dumb shit like this: http://videosift.com/video/Silo-annihilated-with-ak-47

WinterMadness wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 11:29:All of you anti-gun people will be the FIRST ones to complain when the "gubmint" comes after something that you like that is deemed to be "harmful to society". Tthe erosion of freedom in our country sickens me, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". All of this uproar over assault weapons when the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showed 323 deaths by rifles in the USA and that is ALL types of rifles, not just AR's. There were 6220 deaths by handguns which will be the NEXT thing they come after once they have banned AR's. Then it will continue with whatever other weapon they deem is dangerous. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood releasing their statistics for 2011, 334,000 unborn babies killed but THAT's AOK with the loony left! Call us crazy but the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical govt from taking ALL power away from the people, just read some of the founding father's writings on the subject. Wake the fuck up you morons,, you will be the reason we become a fascist nation. In closing, MOLON LABE, come take it motherfuckers...

Officially derailed by nonsense.

I dunno I don't think he's too far off, liberals are in an uproar about automatic weapons when there's about 100 times more deaths from handguns. So what comes after banning riffles and AR's when it doesn't affect anything? Easy, you'll go after handguns. Like I keep saying kneejerk reactions over one incident are just that, they don't solve anything.

I love how documented numbers are nonsense unless they support your side. librul logic

I meant the planned parenthood part. Comparing school shootings to abortions is pretty asinine.

But it's standard for you - unable to actually parse arguments anyone makes, instead classifying them as "Liberal" or "Not Liberal," and if "Liberal" then "Argument = Piers Morgan." You're a riot. You're wholly unable to believe someone has points of view that don't match what other, larger, classified groups think.

And you STILL haven't offered a solution. You just say "mental health!" as if it's a solution. There's been zero critical thought coming from you. Identifying problems is something a first grader can do. Turning them into solutions is something a bit more problematic, and something you've yet to even offer.

For as much as people pull the it isn't "right vs. left" argument, it really is a question of different ideologies. I'm not sure why he threw the abortion thing in there, that's a whole other ball of wax on it's own.

What I said was maybe there are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.

There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.

WinterMadness wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 11:29:All of you anti-gun people will be the FIRST ones to complain when the "gubmint" comes after something that you like that is deemed to be "harmful to society". Tthe erosion of freedom in our country sickens me, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". All of this uproar over assault weapons when the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showed 323 deaths by rifles in the USA and that is ALL types of rifles, not just AR's. There were 6220 deaths by handguns which will be the NEXT thing they come after once they have banned AR's. Then it will continue with whatever other weapon they deem is dangerous. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood releasing their statistics for 2011, 334,000 unborn babies killed but THAT's AOK with the loony left! Call us crazy but the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical govt from taking ALL power away from the people, just read some of the founding father's writings on the subject. Wake the fuck up you morons,, you will be the reason we become a fascist nation. In closing, MOLON LABE, come take it motherfuckers...

Officially derailed by nonsense.

I dunno I don't think he's too far off, liberals are in an uproar about automatic weapons when there's about 100 times more deaths from handguns. So what comes after banning riffles and AR's when it doesn't affect anything? Easy, you'll go after handguns. Like I keep saying kneejerk reactions over one incident are just that, they don't solve anything.

I love how documented numbers are nonsense unless they support your side. librul logic

I meant the planned parenthood part. Comparing school shootings to abortions is pretty asinine.

But it's standard for you - unable to actually parse arguments anyone makes, instead classifying them as "Liberal" or "Not Liberal," and if "Liberal" then "Argument = Piers Morgan." You're a riot. You're wholly unable to believe someone has points of view that don't match what other, larger, classified groups think.

And you STILL haven't offered a solution. You just say "mental health!" as if it's a solution. There's been zero critical thought coming from you. Identifying problems is something a first grader can do. Turning them into solutions is something a bit more problematic, and something you've yet to even offer.

WinterMadness wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 11:29:All of you anti-gun people will be the FIRST ones to complain when the "gubmint" comes after something that you like that is deemed to be "harmful to society". Tthe erosion of freedom in our country sickens me, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". All of this uproar over assault weapons when the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showed 323 deaths by rifles in the USA and that is ALL types of rifles, not just AR's. There were 6220 deaths by handguns which will be the NEXT thing they come after once they have banned AR's. Then it will continue with whatever other weapon they deem is dangerous. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood releasing their statistics for 2011, 334,000 unborn babies killed but THAT's AOK with the loony left! Call us crazy but the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical govt from taking ALL power away from the people, just read some of the founding father's writings on the subject. Wake the fuck up you morons,, you will be the reason we become a fascist nation. In closing, MOLON LABE, come take it motherfuckers...

Officially derailed by nonsense.

I dunno I don't think he's too far off, liberals are in an uproar about automatic weapons when there's about 100 times more deaths from handguns. So what comes after banning riffles and AR's when it doesn't affect anything? Easy, you'll go after handguns. Like I keep saying kneejerk reactions over one incident are just that, they don't solve anything.

I love how documented numbers are nonsense unless they support your side. librul logic

Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 19:52:Creston, I hope you are not serious about that. That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Oh, so the DHS has prevented terrorist attacks, huh? We have had ONE ever. Period. We had none before that, and none after.

That's like claiming... I don't know. I honestly cannot think of anything as stupid as what you just said.

One attack, huh? The 1975 and 1993 bombings in New York City don't count? Oklahoma City in 1995 doesn't count? And that's me being generous and assuming that you meant we had no terrorist attacks on American soil, because if you're literally saying what it appears you are saying, that America has had exactly ONE terrorist attack against it, period, may I suggest just going ahead and switching to a different news source, because then you just reached a level of fucking ignorance heretofore only claimed by the President of fucking Iran.

And no attacks after?

let me just go back three years:

2010 May 1, New York City: a car bomb is discovered in Times Square, New York City after smoke is seen coming from a vehicle. The bomb was ignited, but failed to detonate and was disarmed before it could cause any harm. Times Square was evacuated as a safety precaution. Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to placing the bomb as well as 10 terrorism and weapons charges. Oct. 29: two packages are found on separate cargo planes. Each package contains a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams (11-14 oz) of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism. The bombs are discovered as a result of intelligence received from Saudi Arabia's security chief. The packages, bound from Yemen to the United States, are discovered at en route stop-overs, one in England and one in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.2011 Jan. 17, Spokane, Washington: a pipe bomb is discovered along the route of the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial march. The bomb, a "viable device" set up to spray marchers with shrapnel and to cause multiple casualties, is defused without any injuries.

"Awr shit the DHS dun do nothing there aint no attacks being made agains ush!" Solid argument there, numbnuts.

Creston

I was going to reply, but then I see that you chose to start calling names like a 5th grader, so I don't feel the need to argue with someone like that.

WinterMadness wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 11:29:All of you anti-gun people will be the FIRST ones to complain when the "gubmint" comes after something that you like that is deemed to be "harmful to society". Tthe erosion of freedom in our country sickens me, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". All of this uproar over assault weapons when the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showed 323 deaths by rifles in the USA and that is ALL types of rifles, not just AR's. There were 6220 deaths by handguns which will be the NEXT thing they come after once they have banned AR's. Then it will continue with whatever other weapon they deem is dangerous. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood releasing their statistics for 2011, 334,000 unborn babies killed but THAT's AOK with the loony left! Call us crazy but the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical govt from taking ALL power away from the people, just read some of the founding father's writings on the subject. Wake the fuck up you morons,, you will be the reason we become a fascist nation. In closing, MOLON LABE, come take it motherfuckers...

WinterMadness wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 11:29:All of you anti-gun people will be the FIRST ones to complain when the "gubmint" comes after something that you like that is deemed to be "harmful to society". Tthe erosion of freedom in our country sickens me, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". All of this uproar over assault weapons when the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showed 323 deaths by rifles in the USA and that is ALL types of rifles, not just AR's. There were 6220 deaths by handguns which will be the NEXT thing they come after once they have banned AR's. Then it will continue with whatever other weapon they deem is dangerous. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood releasing their statistics for 2011, 334,000 unborn babies killed but THAT's AOK with the loony left! Call us crazy but the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical govt from taking ALL power away from the people, just read some of the founding father's writings on the subject. Wake the fuck up you morons,, you will be the reason we become a fascist nation. In closing, MOLON LABE, come take it motherfuckers...

All of you anti-gun people will be the FIRST ones to complain when the "gubmint" comes after something that you like that is deemed to be "harmful to society". Tthe erosion of freedom in our country sickens me, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". All of this uproar over assault weapons when the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showed 323 deaths by rifles in the USA and that is ALL types of rifles, not just AR's. There were 6220 deaths by handguns which will be the NEXT thing they come after once they have banned AR's. Then it will continue with whatever other weapon they deem is dangerous. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood releasing their statistics for 2011, 334,000 unborn babies killed but THAT's AOK with the loony left! Call us crazy but the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical govt from taking ALL power away from the people, just read some of the founding father's writings on the subject. Wake the fuck up you morons,, you will be the reason we become a fascist nation. In closing, MOLON LABE, come take it motherfuckers...

The US citizens need guns to protect themselves from the upcoming zombie apocalypse. In the documentary "The Walking Dead" it's been proven that you're shafted without lots of guns and ammunition at home.

Then there's the documentary "Red Dawn", where you can clearly see that due to the looming Russian (or, in the latest edition, North Corean) invasion, it's better to be armed with automatic rifles.